Talk:Denazification/Archive 1

Archive 1

Soviet Zone Denazification

This article states that, "The most radical and rapid denazification occurred in the Soviet zone... Members of the Nazi Party and its daughter organizations were removed from their positions without right of appeal."

This information seems to be contradicted by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which states that, "In the Soviet zone, denazification measures were designed to serve the Soviet's main objective - restructuring society according to Communist principles. Most rank and file Nazis were not affected by the Soviet measures because they showed they were willing to participate in the creation of a Communist society, usually by joining the Communist party." http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x14/xm1497.html

I would suggest that there are many sources that suggest or simply state that denazification within the soviet zone was never seriously attempted. The soviets simply "ignored" those with significant Nazi history if it served their own purposes. A great many Nazis who had been in positions of authority were allowed to retain those positions in the new regime if they claimed to have seen the light and "converted" to Communism. However, anyone who did not tow the Communist line, regardless of their past history, was usually branded as having been a Nazi, simply to justify their incarceration, usually in the old Nazi camps now being run by the Soviets. There are even cases of Jews being accused of being Nazis! I would be happy to have a crack at re-writing some of this and including the necessary references where appropriate. I really think it needs to be said. Wood Artist 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Denazification of Austria

As far as I can see, this text is not about denazification in Austria, although it says so in the opening paragraph. Would it be a good idea not to mention Austria there and rename the whole page Denazification in Germany? Comments? >KF< 21:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Occupation Zones existed in Austria in a similar manner to how they did in Germany - perhaps the text refers not only to German zones but the Austrian ones too? >Cube< Thu Jun 3 16:31:20 UTC 2004

Backlash effects?

I am rather shocked by the last paragraph of this article. It does not contain any information but is only a complaint that Nazi-children are still waiting for humane treatment.

I would like to have some detailed information about any single case where there was no differentiation between parent and offspring. Because I have difficulties to believe that there were any. -- Susanna576 20:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Without a source its more harmfull than helpfull. I'll remove the section unless anyone objects. Frederick12 23:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Denazification effects

The objective and reason of the Denazification was to erase from Western societies all rests of Nazism. Until the appearance of Nazi children at the end of last century the Denazification campaign was successful. All Nazi children kept silent, dwelled in their closet. Their reinsertion by own will in our societies makes Susanna and millions of children of the victors shocked. It is all too normal. Peace work is challenged by the enormity of the WW II. Kluwer 06 April 2005

In his book, The Beast Reawakens, author Martin A. Lee presents research to make the case that denazification was an idea never adequately accomplished; and, in regards to the Nazi industrialists, denazification was barely attempted. He tracks the postwar activities of celebrated Nazis like Otto Ernst Remer; Remer began the Socialist Reich Party in postwar West Germany. [Lee. Martin A., The Beast Reawakens, copyright 1997, Little, Brown & Company, ISBN 0-316-51959-6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Denazification

When will the world wake up the the Nazification of India, and undertake the Denazification of India?

Or will it wait until India achieves its dreams of imitating Nazi Germany and Meiji Japan as a world superpower and commits horrible crimes against humanity?

It seems that "Never Again!" stops at the borders of the West!

While the West boycotted the Austrian government because of its inclusion of Joerg Haider's alleged Neo-Nazi party in the coalition, it had no problems cohaitating with Atalbihari Vajpayi's Neo-Nazi regime, based on the Neo-Nazi Sangh Parivar, Bajrang Dal, R.S.S., and with the rabidly Hitlerolatrous Shiv Sena of Bollocks Thugrat as a valued coalition partner!

Bill Clinton, the purported ultra-liberal, had no compunction visiting with, and endorsing Vajpayi's Neo-Nazi government! Speak of hypocrisy!

Even Israel has had no compunction cozying up with the Indian Neo-Nazis!

My warnings are being ignored, but in the hope that some at least in the world are not asleep, I remind the world that India is an emerging threat; that there is little difference between the "secularists" Indian parties, such as the Indian National Congress, and the Sangh Parivar or Shiv Sena on the other hand, and that if history is permitted to be forgotten, it will inevitably repeat itself!

Wake up now! The real major threats to future world peace are not Globalization, etc., but such as India! I predict that Communist China will implode within 20 years, degenerating into civil war, and so will not be a major threat. Even the War on Terror / Clash of Islamic - Western civilizations will be overshadowed.

This may sound hyped, but if the world will not take a hand, it will one day see a new Hitler in the person of Narendra Modi or Dilip Singh Judeo presiding over a Nazi Bharat!

WikiSceptic 07:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are probably not the best places for evangelizing your own personal speculative beliefs concerning world events. If you have credible sources relevant to the subject that could shed some light on the subject of the article, feel free to contribute.

-- G-Flex 15:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

University Ban in the ABZ

I'm interested in seeing more (or at least some mention) of the ban against young Germans entering German universities on the basis of Nazi education (i.e. the AH schools, etc.). I have heard firsthand that it included Napola cadets, and also that a few visiting American politicians felt sorry for some of these kids and actually sponsored them to study in the USA. I would like to find sources on this, however. Cyclopean typewriter 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fragebogen

The Fragegogen was the questionaire that many hundreds of thousands were required to complete, detailing their past, party membership, and activities. It was not truly an objective process, with many significant Nazis cleared while "small fry" often were denied future employment due to their answers. The paper document was followed up with an interview. If the subject was cleared, s/he was given a document called a "Persil" certificate...so named for a brand of soap...that allowed them to seek employment in the sensitive positions such as teaching.

I believe this element should be included in the article, and I'd be happy to have a go at writing it. Any objections?

Wood Artist 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means - go ahead! That's what Wikipedia is for. Cheers, Mabuse 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy?

Was a similar program done in Italy? If so, it may be a good addition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Nothing was done in Italy. They still occupy South Tyrol, still enforce the use of their invented Italian names there, still have many fascist monuments, and recenty elected Alessandra Mussolini to the EP. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did an Italian steal your girlfriend or something? Occupy.. "invented" names. You are extremely ignorant Matthead with regard to this province. But anyway, I guess that Denazification was highly successful in Germany, eh? o_O Icsunonove 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes denazification was extremely succesful! The rise of German neonazis and nationalists is a good example. Ghum. Italy, by definition cant be "denazified", because fascism (how bad it may be) isn't nazism, and there are at least 6 million reasons to support that view. And Matthead is the last person on wikipedia to accuse others of nationalism. What happened matthead? Could they finally get you to stop adding German, and removing polish names from Polish articles, so now you've moved to Italy? Rex 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it can be funny to reply, I think that the better thing to do in these cases is to look and pass.--Supparluca 09:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, surely the occupation and annexation of South Tyrol by Italy is at least as relevant as the annexation / recovery of East Germany by the Russians and Poles. Italy was an Axis member which retained South Tyrol because it was politically savvy, thus benefiting from fascism, so whether or not it was subsequently de-nazified or de-fascisiesd is a valid questionFetu's dad (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not limited to "Nazis"

Denazification seems to be an euphemism. While it was mainly directed against members of the NSDAP. Non-Members of the German elite were included as well.

Define the German "elite" and how the non-members of this class were denazified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Denazification in Polish territories

The current version is an unbelievable and absolutely inacceptable POV. “Some ethnic Germans were expelled because of their Nazi activities during the war” ? Some ? 15 million people were forced to leave and NOBODY asked anything about their political thougts. A German was a fascist, that´s all. The whole term does not belong to the topic Denazification, which describes the decisions of the Allied Control Council in Berlin, how to treat Nazis and how these decisions were transformed in the different Occupation Zones. The Allied Control Council wasn´t responsible for Polish territories and whatever happened there was not decided by this Council. Btw there´s no coherence to the linked term Landsmannschaft. The whole section should be removed from this topic.(217.184.150.126 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I would have to agree, it does seem to rather underplay the magnitude of what happened. The other overlooked subject is the loss of Eastern Poland to Russia and the movement of people westward.Fetu's dad (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky reference

According to this interview - with the person himself - there's been some controversy around 1967 with Chomsky calling for denazification of the USA. Apparently, the context was that the New York Times at the time accused mothers that wrongly accused a Museum for mismanagement of an exhibit having children shooting at Vietnamese. --94.71.121.137 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I've added a bit on the part of censorship. The link on how OMGUS dealt with denazification of ordinary art, e.g. paintings, no longer works, but is available from the internet archive here. It is by Cora Goldstein and titled "PURGES, EXCLUSIONS, AND LIMITS: ART POLICIES IN GERMANY 1933-1949" Anyone who has the time please read through it and expand on that part, it is quite fascinating. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Collective guilt section

I have added a disputed tag to this section. I find it hard to believe that the British believed in collective guilt as both Churchill and Montgomery, the two most important British figures of the war, made speeches against such views. I'm not British either. I don't have much knowledge about the USA's policies.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let me be the first to tell you that, especially considering what the U.S. did to their own citizens just 8 years later (McCarthyism), the United States of America would have gladly distributed pamphlets forcing the entirety of the German nation to feel guilty about a leader who was elected by backroom policies and who consolidated power by murder until no one could stop him, to the point where his reelection would have been a foregone conclusion if Germany at the time had been full of Americans, or British, or anyone.

And I'm an American, so no one can accuse me of Anti-Americanism. It's the old principle, that if you belong to a group, then it's OK for you to be angry at said group. IdiotsOpposite (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

I see nothing to justify the tag. I assume from the vague description above that the anonymous IP above disputes the UK participation in the campaign, based on some unspecified speeches by UK prime minister Winston Churchill the General in charge of the UK occupation zone, field Marshall Montgomery. Since the sections referring to the UK are cited, and the IP has provided nothing tangiable I propose to remove the tag. At a minimum we should expect to be told of which dates these alleged speeches are from, in order to judge their relevance, since the CG campaign was pretty much completed by the end of 1945.

I tried to find any info on these hypothetical speeches, but failed. But I can provide some contextual counter-information.

Obviously the policy of the allies was lightened in phases over a long period.

on March 28, 1945 Churchill wrote: It seems to me the time has come when the bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.[1]

In mid June 1945 Montgomery made a modification of previous orders. Now "Members of the British Forces in Germany will be allowed to speak to, and play with little children." British soldiers were now (after 2 months) allowed to actually speak to the children of the enemy.[2] Eventually they would be allowed to speak to adults too...

In late 1945 (or early 1946?) voluntary relief organizations were no longer stopped from helping also Germans, and eventually food was allowed to be shipped to Germany, in much thanks to the efforts of Victor Gollanz, a great British humanitarian of Jewish origins that tried to change UK policies, for example by telling the public about what was going on in Germany in reports such as this. He was for example opposed to the Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#United_Kingdom, see the end of Gollanz report.

The UK did not seem reluctant to do some stealing also[3]

In the autumn of 1945, i.e. after many many months, the Red Cross was finally permitted to visit and help German prisoners of the British[4]

In the spring of 1946 Montgomery justified lowering German daily food rations to 1000 calories (half what was required for survival by contemporary nutritional standards) he justified it by referring the "German" rations at the Dachau concentration camps, and if that is not assigning collective guilt to an entire population, and also collective punishment... [5]

And this article in the Glasgow Herald from April 1945 that lumps together Eisenhower and Montgomery as regards the "collective guilt policies" should close the case I hope.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV?

This article seems to have a number of POV problems. The American denazification has a definite slant against it. The Soviet denazification is treated as barbaric, but much less space is devoted to it. The article doesn't really describe any of the intended goals or successes of denazification. Needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article is hilarious in my opinion. In East Germany there were new school books (which was the most important factor for the culture and personality of young people in my opinion) even since 1946. In West Germany the most of the books used even after 1950 were the same or identical to those before 1945... Moreover I added a section about the Brown Book, but I don't have the time to edit the whole article and given its unappropriate style I can't imagine how this can be done actually... Stelarov (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Source?

Where is the source for this? I can't find it?

To the question of whether an Aryan who marries a Jew should be condemned, 91% responded "No". To the question of whether "All those who ordered the murder of civilians or participated in the murdering should be made to stand trial," 94% responded "Yes" --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I was just reading this article out of interest when I came across the following. It was the last sentence that caught my eye:

"The Allied costs for occupation were charged to the German people. The newspaper that revealed that the charges included for example the cost for thirty thousand bras was banned by the occupation authorities for revealing this."

I followed the link to the indicated evidence for this statement -- the article "Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?", and there's no mention anywhere of "bras". I think this might be vandalism, unless I'm missing something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked up on this and found in the referenced article the following passage:

"German newspapers began to release details of what troops were buying with German taxpayers’ money: one ton of water bugs to feed a U.S. general’s pet fish, a bedspread of Korean goatskin, thirty thousand bras (the Americans banned the newspaper for publishing this last item—a nice “democratic” touch on the part of the would-be “teachers of democracy”). " So if it is vandalism, it is cited vandalism. Was worth checking up on though, somewhat unbelievable.

Zerakith (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

In here it says that it is not right to claim that Nazis and Germans are the same thing. I think this deserves a place on this page, as a more modern response to the 'collective' guilt idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.123.248 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

The whole section, which used to be titled "Collective guilt campaign" - with the obvious POV pushing with the word "campaign" in there, as in "denazification" was a bad thing, a "campaign", an exercise in "propaganda" and oppression, rather than a uncompleted necessary measure - which I retitled to "Responsibility and collective guilt" is frankly embarrassing. While it cites some sources (a lot of interpretation of primary sources going on), it is worded and structured in a way which makes it obvious that's it's whole purpose is to demonize the Allies and portray Germans - Nazi Germans - as "victims" of some insidious campaign which these evil Allies orchestrated just because they were these very mean people. Not even going to wonder aloud about who got hold of that text. Volunteer Marek  04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And oh yeah, if that section even hopes to have a NPOV balance then there should be a good bit more information on how the whole idea of "denazification" was quickly abandoned after hardly a year or two, when the expedients of the Cold War made that practical. The window of time during which the Allies took it seriously was very short lived, and plenty of mass murderers and sadistic war criminals managed to quickly get their "denazified" certificates and went on to serve as mayors, professors, judges and in other prominent positions in both Germanies. Hell, some of these folks have been cited as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia. Instead what we get here is strange apologetics about how some German civilians were oppressed because they were forced to visit the death camps that their brothers, fathers, and uncles administered. And come on people, this stuff's in the sources. Volunteer Marek  04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree that collective guilt should not be depicted in such a way it prevents readers from remembering to take into account those who never agreed with collective guilt, you should understand that there is nothing wrong with describing Germans as victims of Allied prejudice, as it does not imply they cannot also be the agents of prejudice. Being victims almost never implies being innocent. (Personally, I think victims are in fact much more likely to also be agents to victimize others) 173.180.202.22 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On Germans being victimized... while personal/family experiences should not be projected to generalize anything, I'll ignore my own advice to observe that the Germans were treated as vermin at the end of the war. My father-in-law, a teenager in the DP camps with his family, when accosted by US soldiers asking his name, had his throat slit and was left to die when he answered "Heinrich"—his only crime having a German-sounding name. My godparents' daughter was poisoned, not treated, by doctors because my godfather's name, Atis, was (by official documents) "Otto". A nurse confessed as much subsequently to the "tragic mistake" that it wasn't a "Nazi" child they had killed. Survive the Soviets, the Nazis, escape the Soviet re-invasion of your homeland and likely deportation to Siberia only to have the Allies kill you after the war anyway. Sweet. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to "acquire" 173's drift. His preposterous "Being victims almost never implies being innocent" prepares the way to the claim that "Jews deserved their Holocaust". It just ain't gonna wash.--Galassi (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Animated gif

The animated gif is really distracting when trying to concentrate on the article. Does it really have to be there?

--78.104.125.200 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. I find it hugely distracting. Deschreiber (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite agree, so I moved it. If it's still a problem perhaps it should be moved to a gallery below. pgr94 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with editor's flag

Although I have contributed a good deal of information on this topic using Frederick Taylor's Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany, I will no longer contribute (after one more addition). Today I attempted to add what I thought was a worthwhile section ("Credibility in the Eyes of the Germans") on how the German people of the time viewed denazification. Again I was using the Taylor book and carefully using citations for every claim. My work was flagged as inappropriate in "style" for an encyclopedia article—supposedly more in the nature of an essay or opinion piece. The flagger must be reading different encyclopedias than I do. Since I used the same style I had used throughout my other contributions, I did not agree with judgment. My suspicion is that someone found the new material objectionable not for its style but because it described some of the serious flaws in the denazification program and explained why the Germans did not like it, often for very legitimate reasons. I wonder whether the person who flagged the section thought it was pro-Nazi (definitely it was not). Deschreiber (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the flag. I think the topic of the addition is good, but the writing style is essay-like; rhetorical discussions aren't encyclopaedic. A change in style is what I felt was required, not deletion. (Hohum ^@) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denazification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201112320/http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc to http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712090627/http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/books/judt-postwar.php to http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/books/judt-postwar.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515094710/http://www.ccges.yorku.ca:80/The-Denazification-of-Austria-by.html to http://www.ccges.yorku.ca/The-Denazification-of-Austria-by.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Implications

I am not at all sure what the section "Implications" is about. The first subsection makes sense, but I am not left expecting it to continue "and ..." or "thus ..." or "but ..." .

However the second section "For the future of Europe" contains one sentence "The end of denazification ..." I have no idea what it means. If any one has an idea can the please edit in clarification. The sentence was added] in 2011 by an editor using an IP address (188.28.173.251) so I can not ask the author what (s)he meant. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Germany in 21st century, and 2005 swastika example

@PBS: The recent additions of 21st century "examples" seem to be anachronistic, and going off scope for the article, which is about the now defunct post war denazification program. Surely recent examples fit better into Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags etc.? (Hohum ^@) 20:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Hohum, This edit did not alert me, so sorry for the tardy response.

Anachronism "person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present" so no I do not this it is anachronistic, but I will address the scope issue.

What makes you think that the "denazification programme" is defunct? Germany today still have lots of restrictions on what Germans can and can not do with regards to the Nazis which by Anglo-Saxon concepts seem excessive restrictions on freedom of expression. Some of these are mentioned in Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany, but there are others for example restricting what parents may name their children (Naming law#Germany). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Do any of your sources mention Denazification specifically, if not, they are out of scope for this article. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Language

This is a definitively European subject, so it is clear that European spellings should be used. There are possible exceptions to this rule in neighbouring topics, such as the American zone of occupation, but it is hard to see a plausible justification for applying US English conventions in this specific case.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the links in references

This link to Google Books makes it so that the search bar contains "Nazism was a good idea, badly applied", and I'm not sure whether it should be changed to just be a normal link to the book. Also I've never really done edits before and I'm not sure how exactly to change it. --BadAtCreatingUsernames (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious wording

In the Overview: 'many Germans were not convinced that the trials were anything more than "victors' justice".'

True, but the word 'Germans' is redundant. Many British and American observers, including William Douglas, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, thought that the Nuremberg Trials were a travesty of legal process. In most wars (and WW2 was no exception), all sides commit some atrocities. I accept the generally-held judgement that the Nazis and the Japanese committed much more serious crimes than the Americans or the British, but not all accused were guilty of the worst atrocities. Any "war crimes" trials in which all the accused were on the side that lost the war should be regarded with the greatest scepticism: they are "victors' justice" unless and until proved otherwise.

I propose replacing that clause in the overview by something like: "Most Germans, and some American and British jurists, were not convinced that the trials were anything more than "victors' justice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longitude2 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

it is proven otherwise the facts are there, just look for them GeorgeMarg (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessible journal article from Morris Janowitz

There are log-in requirements for the links in further reading, here his article is accessible: https://archive.org/details/MorrisJanowitzGermanReactionsToNaziAtrocities --105.4.5.173 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Confused by the math here

I'm not switching anything, because I'm not sure what's correct, but read the following passage from the section entitled "Surveys":

"Gordon states that if the 77 percent result is to be believed then an "overwhelming majority" of Germans disapproved of extermination, and if the 37 percent result is believed to be correct then over one third of Germans were willing to exterminate Poles and Jews and others for German security."

77%+37%=114% so I'm unsure how that is possible. Could you answer both yes and no to the survey? Or is this in reference to two separate surveys? Either way, the wording is unclear and if neither possibility is the case, maybe it's false. Jackdlwilson (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is about two different surveys, isn't it?Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Symbolic denazification

Is there any other article describing symbolic denazification - removal of swastikas, Nazi books, street names?Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

One relevant article would be Strafgesetzbuch section 86a which bans various Nazi symbols/organizations and Censorship in Germany. A section this article could link to those ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Xx236 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Since when the Section is valid?Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This I would define as 'negative denazification'. There exists also 'positive' - antinazi culture.

Recently Merkel has been honoured by the army, which was shocking for many non-Germans. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We need similar articles about Austria.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)